If they were all the same, it wouldn’t matter who you voted for – you could just step into the polling booth, play Eeanie-meanie-miney-mo with the voting slip, or close your eyes and point at where you’ll put your cross.
But you don’t. Because they’re not all the same. So, enough with your *all the same* bullshit.
John Rentoul:
> **No, they’re not ‘all the same’: the gap between Labour and the Tories is real**
> *Even after Keir Starmer’s forced march to the centre, there is still a big difference between the parties, argues John Rentoul*
> There are few policy differences between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, as has been pointed out approvingly by me and disapprovingly by others. A government led by Keir Starmer would spend a bit more on the NHS and schools, paid for by taxing non-doms and private schools a bit more.
> There are other possible differences that are unclear, or that will have been overtaken by events by the time of the election. Labour would extend help with gas and electricity bills, paid for by raising a bit more from the windfall tax on oil and gas companies, but Jeremy Hunt will probably do something similar in the Budget next month.
> Labour also currently intends to borrow large additional sums to pay for a Green Prosperity Plan, but I think Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, will tweak that policy so that it meets Hunt’s new rule against borrowing more than 3 per cent of national income in a year. Starmer endorsed Gordon Brown’s plan to replace the House of Lords with an Assembly of the Nations and Regions, but neither he nor Brown said how its members would be chosen.
> Which puts Starmer in a similar position to that of Tony Blair between 1994 and 1997. Some readers would rather I never mentioned Blair again, but whether you are for him or against him, I don’t think you can understand politics now without understanding politics then.
> Every policy change Blair made as leader of the opposition brought Labour closer to the position of the Conservatives. He promised to spend a bit more to achieve modest targets for public services, paid for by, among other things, a windfall tax on the privatised utilities. And he had a big programme of constitutional change: devolution for Scotland, Wales and London; the expulsion of the hereditary peers from parliament; freedom of information law; and the Human Rights Act.
> But on the central questions of taxing and spending, the gap between the parties’ prospectuses in 1997 was trivially small. So it will be again in 2024. Yet that does not mean that “they’re all the same”, a common complaint of the averagely engaged voter. It does not mean that Starmer is just a Tory with a different colour rosette, or that it will make no difference whether there is a Labour government or a Tory one after the next election.
> We have only to consider the 13 years of the last Labour government to know why. Although that government bound itself to Conservative spending plans for its first two years, in an unusual attempt to reassure voters that it was not going to wreck the public finances, it did then increase spending on the NHS, schools and other public services. So much so that we now look back on 2010 as the end of a golden age.
> If there had been no Labour government over that period, public spending would probably have increased – but not as much, as more of the dividend of growth would have been returned to taxpayers in tax cuts.
> Given how badly the Tories lost in 1997, it is a counterfactual that is hard to imagine, but it underlines an essential truth of the next election. Which is that a Labour government would devote more of the proceeds of growth to spending on public services, whereas a Conservative government would devote more to tax cuts.
> Rishi Sunak appeared to be a Blairite pragmatist when he put taxes up to pay for the coronavirus and the global energy price shock, but he would be trapped by the demands of his own party for tax cuts even if he didn’t believe in them himself. Even if he hadn’t called himself a Thatcherite, and even if he didn’t have Liz Truss and her supporters insisting she was right in the face of the evidence, any Conservative government would be likely to cut taxes and reduce public spending more than any Labour government.
> Truss, in her failed premiership and her quixotic attempt to justify it, is merely an extreme manifestation of the Conservative cast of mind. Her arguments don’t make sense, but they express an authentic Tory instinct against the overmighty state.
> One of her targets is the Office for Budget Responsibility, set up by George “Austerity” Osborne, which she says has too much power. Apparently, this power consists of the ability to point out that her sums didn’t add up – as if, without the OBR, they would have done. Does she really think that, if there had been no OBR, the markets wouldn’t have noticed that Kwasi Kwarteng’s plans were for government borrowing to continue to rise indefinitely?
> The big fiscal decisions are only the most important of the thousands of decisions ministers make every day. In a Labour government they would tend in one direction; in a Conservative one, another.
> Take one less-obvious example: rough sleeping. It can never be eliminated completely, but under the last Labour government it was reduced to a minimum. Since then it has gone back up, except for two weeks in March 2020 when the pandemic prompted the authorities to clear the streets. It doesn’t take much public spending to solve rough sleeping, but it does take some, and it takes political will, which was fitful under the Tories and focused under Labour.
> So that is why I think the choice at the next election, or at any election, matters. It does make a difference, especially over time. The manifestos of the two main parties may look the same, but their hearts are in different places.
Of course they aren’t the same, that is just what Tory voters tell themselves (and others) to avoid saying “I was wrong”
This is my biggest bug bear on the labour Reddit (actually little more than a corbyn fan club). They are NOT the same by any measure and I’m tired a bitter left is trying to secure another five years of Tory rule because they are sulking that the party isn’t some pure red cult.
By every measure they are different and will take the country in two separate ways
There are few differences between the 3 major English parties these days. I think this is hard to see in England, but up here they offer the same message and form coalitions with each other on councils, and it is very obvious.
They aren’t the same but that does not mean that Labour is putting forward policies I think are a real alternative to the Tories. They seem to agree on the fundamentals of economic policy and this is a big problem IMO because it impacts everything else. On the big really important topics of government they are very similar, Brexit, more neoliberal light touch regulation and maintaining existing power structures and inherited wealth.
I asked all the parties what they would do about Long Covid (which has now disabled 2 million people in our country) and all of them were forcing a back to work programme, that is absurd for people who are unable to get out of bed or their homes its just cruel and ignoring reality. Nothing on wages and improving the lot the people that make this country tick and turn, just more wealth for the wealthy.
What about housing? Yeah nothing from Labour there either.
The fact all they could find was these two examples in the article is kind of the point, where it matters they aren’t really all that different and its playing around the edges like the central topics are all agreed upon. I am not for that at all and you do not have my vote tied up, I wont ever vote Tory but I can’t vote Labour as it stands.
Blue Tories or red Tories. Labour have already refused to rescind the protest restrictions and refused to give the NHS or anyone else a pay rise. Starmers words were “….won’t spend our way out of this crisis”
They’re not the same, certainly.
The issue is they’re both not great, so it’s ultimately the lesser of two evils. Either way you’re voting for a neoliberal party, so the chances of your material conditions improving much is pretty low either way.
I agree I think labour is better for the country, but don’t expect things to get much better during their term.
The strikes will continue, as while they may be willing to talk to the strikers, they won’t agree to their requests.
The drug policies won’t change.
The transphobic policies won’t change.
HS2 will still continue to be scaled back.
The train prices will keep going up with a worse service being offered.
Afaik the great British energy company idea is for an energy supplier only, so energy prices won’t change in any meaningful way.
This insidious meme, along with the discussion of government “maxing out the credit card” are two of the most poisonous narratives in British politics.
I would find this argument more engaging if it wasn’t so popular with people who got what they voted for at the last election. I will be interested to see what happens when pretending it’s 97 again doesn’t affect the direction of travel for our country. I mean aye, another Tory government would be worse, Labour will probably get in and that’s preferable. It’s better to have one bucket of shit rather than two. But until a large proportion of the population, our media and political class in particular, accept that much of their view of the world is just plain wrong, we are not facing a happy future. They might also bear in mind that having people go along with you because all the other possibilities have been destroyed is not the same as being wise or admirable.
They’re not the same, but I have faith in neither to do the right thing
We shall see, Labour is appealing to more people due to its lurch to the centre right. Something that traditional Labour left voters are baulking at.
The all the same crowd are just justifying their piss poor choices, like my Dad who voted Tory.
It’s the current go-to defence of people online who “knew what they were voting for” but still don’t have enough shame yet to just shut the hell up.
The gap is between the centre right politician and the only slightly more liberal centre right politician.
The UK will only become more Conservative as the atmosphere of politics is overwhelmingly Conservative, every majorly read newspaper is Conservative, Conservatives dominate the media, the government and the press is a revolving door and Labour attempt to win elections by becoming more Conservative.
There is no pushback, supposedly left wing politicians are only allowed to exist without having their character shot, stabbed and hung on the front pages of the Daily Mail if they pander to bigoted fools with dogwhistles and hateful rhetoric to be considered sufficiently electable.
The only politicians allowed to succeed in the UK are Conservative politicians.
The, “they’re all the same” attitude exists because of the increasing voter apathy and lazyiness which isn’t helped by social meida groups seemingly switching tracks, (amd indeed allegiences) without warning. Facebook is littered with anti Brexit/anti Tory groups which have seemingly dedicated themselves to scuppering Starmer’s chances soseemly no reason.
Do I thin this is a Tory ploy? No, the wider public, (and very much Labour’s support and voter base) does this to themselves with constant social media driven, “purity tests” and the villification/harrassment of those differing opinions regardless of extent or validity. Every move by the, “opponent” is framed as being: sexist/racist/authoritaritan so the deep meaningful policy dicussions and compromises required for progress are made impossible.
Basically, the .U.S. style of far left- far right polarisation of politics is embedding itself, (imported by both sides) and no one is making an effort to resist it. I blame both sides for falling into this trap. Sod both The Mail and the Guardian.
Theyre not the same, the tories will repeatedly make things worse, whereas labour simply wont do anything.
Like picking between two turds. Don’t spoil your ballets – vote an Independent.
“They are all the same” is a right-wing trope, and it is never true.
There may be similarities on some levels, but in terms of the main political conviction, they could not be more different.
Anyone who voted for the Conservatives in the next election should be culled.
This and voter apathy are some of the big causes of the past decade of political stupidity.
Yeah I need more from a party than ‘not tory’.
I won’t vote for neoliberalism anymore. I’ll vote green, so be it if it’s a wasted vote.
The “all the same” argument is just tory voters that absolutely dispise what their party did to them and the country but want to somehow justify why they keep voting tory. If the other options are just as bad then it doesn’t matter if they keep voting tory.
But… they’re not just as bad…
A tory leader crashed the economy, the penisons and sent mortageges skyrocketing in just 1 month of having power.
The tories are proven incompetent.
They’re the same in the way that impacts most, they’re both neoliberals.
That means the rich get richer, we get poorer, and they get their nice golden handshakes from the corpos at the end of it.
They are both the party of neoliberal capitalism though.
Will benefits get higher if Labour come in, will they scrap sanctions? Will they deal with refugees any better? Will they work to re-nationalise key industries? And so on and so forth. So there might be little differences here and there, one party might be more efficient in their management of capitalism, but that’s about it.
‘They’re all the same’ – the battle hymn of the shy Tory.
They both support brexit. They are the same for the one policy that counts. Give us a third choice.
Regardless of which Party I vote for the outcome will be the same for my life. So, while they are “not the same”, they very much are the same as far as my life is concerned. So any argument about them being “different” or that the “gap between” is a meaningless argument because it will make zero difference to my life.
All politicians need an eye kept on them, shifty bastards; but some girl’s mothers, are worse politicians than other girl’s mothers.
Out of both main parties, one specifically looks out for the interests of a much smaller demographic than it needs to get itself elected. Ergo most people’s interests are likely best served by the other – all things being equal & probably having to concede a few sacred cows; that’s your best bet
They may not be the same, the Tories are so bad now, I reckon skeletor would be leading in the polls, but they’re not so different either. Labour under Starmer are offering nothing. The top players in Labour are funded by corporate interests, such as BlackRock and American health insurance. Starmer is trying to get Murdoch’s approval not the workers . He is cut from the same cloth as the worst of the conservatives. The lesser evil is the only thing on offer, and as bad as the Tories are,voting in the self interest is all it will take to get them in again. If Murdoch doesn’t switch sides then Labour are unlikely to win as our democracy is dead. Lobbying and oligarchy have destroyed our vote. We need someone with a big idea,we need a real alternative.
Article is behind a paywall, just saying the last elected Labour pm was Tony Blair who took us into a pointless war, sold off water reservoirs deeming them unnecessary while we get annual hosepipe bans due to shortages, and is sitting on the board of the company that made a lot of money from buying and converting them into housing. Net worth of over 50mil.
So yeah both sides seem to fuck over the country for personal gain.
exaggerated blue neoliberal hell or less exagerrated red neoliberal hell.
no one is going to sort the housing crisis, invest in public transport infrastructure, invest in education, or invest in the health service.
who then do you vote for?
Alright then give Labour a crack and I will bet that are situation will be the same or worse.
They are different in ideology, I won’t vote Tory but Kier Starmer is using two words when one will do, he says we will have to be ‘financially responsible’ But that will just be the new ‘austerity’ IMHO. He won’t have the money to splash out and make things better because it’s all in Sunak’s mates pockets!
I think it’s more ment their policy and rhetoric are not that different from the Tories. Their entire appeal is “less evil than but still evil”.
They aren’t supporting workers striking. They support brexit, they pander to the right wing vote, they still support the house of lords, they still support FPTP.
I hear alot of “well they just need to get into power, then they can make a change”.
Then getting into power is an eventuality. You will be shocked to discover that they won’t function any differently.
Time will tell but I won’t accept seeing posts in 2 years time saying “starmers basically just a Tory I can’t believe I voted for him”. I’ll be here to tell you I told you so.
“They’re all the same” has always ever been the cry of right wingers and centrists and fence sitters to institute apathy.
We’ve somehow been deluded into believing New Labour under Blair were some kind of mega Tory corpo-wankers when just about every public service worked better in the early 2000s than they do now, the poor were treated better, rights for minorities and LGBTQ groups were expanded rather than attacked, and even the economy worked better.
A right leaning Labour leader did more good than every Tory since put together, and somehow it’s just been forgotten. As if figures on the far right which are actively thieving from us and denying us the basics of a functional government can be allowed to point at people which did better things than them in every single field and say “they’re the same as us!”
Voting for labour is like going back to your ex that made dinner but kicked your head in whenever his team lost.
“They’re all the same” was a narrative promoted by Tories in opposition.
The only way they could get back into power was to convince us that they were the same as Labour.
38 comments
If they were all the same, it wouldn’t matter who you voted for – you could just step into the polling booth, play Eeanie-meanie-miney-mo with the voting slip, or close your eyes and point at where you’ll put your cross.
But you don’t. Because they’re not all the same. So, enough with your *all the same* bullshit.
John Rentoul:
> **No, they’re not ‘all the same’: the gap between Labour and the Tories is real**
> *Even after Keir Starmer’s forced march to the centre, there is still a big difference between the parties, argues John Rentoul*
> There are few policy differences between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, as has been pointed out approvingly by me and disapprovingly by others. A government led by Keir Starmer would spend a bit more on the NHS and schools, paid for by taxing non-doms and private schools a bit more.
> There are other possible differences that are unclear, or that will have been overtaken by events by the time of the election. Labour would extend help with gas and electricity bills, paid for by raising a bit more from the windfall tax on oil and gas companies, but Jeremy Hunt will probably do something similar in the Budget next month.
> Labour also currently intends to borrow large additional sums to pay for a Green Prosperity Plan, but I think Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, will tweak that policy so that it meets Hunt’s new rule against borrowing more than 3 per cent of national income in a year. Starmer endorsed Gordon Brown’s plan to replace the House of Lords with an Assembly of the Nations and Regions, but neither he nor Brown said how its members would be chosen.
> Which puts Starmer in a similar position to that of Tony Blair between 1994 and 1997. Some readers would rather I never mentioned Blair again, but whether you are for him or against him, I don’t think you can understand politics now without understanding politics then.
> Every policy change Blair made as leader of the opposition brought Labour closer to the position of the Conservatives. He promised to spend a bit more to achieve modest targets for public services, paid for by, among other things, a windfall tax on the privatised utilities. And he had a big programme of constitutional change: devolution for Scotland, Wales and London; the expulsion of the hereditary peers from parliament; freedom of information law; and the Human Rights Act.
> But on the central questions of taxing and spending, the gap between the parties’ prospectuses in 1997 was trivially small. So it will be again in 2024. Yet that does not mean that “they’re all the same”, a common complaint of the averagely engaged voter. It does not mean that Starmer is just a Tory with a different colour rosette, or that it will make no difference whether there is a Labour government or a Tory one after the next election.
> We have only to consider the 13 years of the last Labour government to know why. Although that government bound itself to Conservative spending plans for its first two years, in an unusual attempt to reassure voters that it was not going to wreck the public finances, it did then increase spending on the NHS, schools and other public services. So much so that we now look back on 2010 as the end of a golden age.
> If there had been no Labour government over that period, public spending would probably have increased – but not as much, as more of the dividend of growth would have been returned to taxpayers in tax cuts.
> Given how badly the Tories lost in 1997, it is a counterfactual that is hard to imagine, but it underlines an essential truth of the next election. Which is that a Labour government would devote more of the proceeds of growth to spending on public services, whereas a Conservative government would devote more to tax cuts.
> Rishi Sunak appeared to be a Blairite pragmatist when he put taxes up to pay for the coronavirus and the global energy price shock, but he would be trapped by the demands of his own party for tax cuts even if he didn’t believe in them himself. Even if he hadn’t called himself a Thatcherite, and even if he didn’t have Liz Truss and her supporters insisting she was right in the face of the evidence, any Conservative government would be likely to cut taxes and reduce public spending more than any Labour government.
> Truss, in her failed premiership and her quixotic attempt to justify it, is merely an extreme manifestation of the Conservative cast of mind. Her arguments don’t make sense, but they express an authentic Tory instinct against the overmighty state.
> One of her targets is the Office for Budget Responsibility, set up by George “Austerity” Osborne, which she says has too much power. Apparently, this power consists of the ability to point out that her sums didn’t add up – as if, without the OBR, they would have done. Does she really think that, if there had been no OBR, the markets wouldn’t have noticed that Kwasi Kwarteng’s plans were for government borrowing to continue to rise indefinitely?
> The big fiscal decisions are only the most important of the thousands of decisions ministers make every day. In a Labour government they would tend in one direction; in a Conservative one, another.
> Take one less-obvious example: rough sleeping. It can never be eliminated completely, but under the last Labour government it was reduced to a minimum. Since then it has gone back up, except for two weeks in March 2020 when the pandemic prompted the authorities to clear the streets. It doesn’t take much public spending to solve rough sleeping, but it does take some, and it takes political will, which was fitful under the Tories and focused under Labour.
> So that is why I think the choice at the next election, or at any election, matters. It does make a difference, especially over time. The manifestos of the two main parties may look the same, but their hearts are in different places.
Of course they aren’t the same, that is just what Tory voters tell themselves (and others) to avoid saying “I was wrong”
This is my biggest bug bear on the labour Reddit (actually little more than a corbyn fan club). They are NOT the same by any measure and I’m tired a bitter left is trying to secure another five years of Tory rule because they are sulking that the party isn’t some pure red cult.
By every measure they are different and will take the country in two separate ways
There are few differences between the 3 major English parties these days. I think this is hard to see in England, but up here they offer the same message and form coalitions with each other on councils, and it is very obvious.
They aren’t the same but that does not mean that Labour is putting forward policies I think are a real alternative to the Tories. They seem to agree on the fundamentals of economic policy and this is a big problem IMO because it impacts everything else. On the big really important topics of government they are very similar, Brexit, more neoliberal light touch regulation and maintaining existing power structures and inherited wealth.
I asked all the parties what they would do about Long Covid (which has now disabled 2 million people in our country) and all of them were forcing a back to work programme, that is absurd for people who are unable to get out of bed or their homes its just cruel and ignoring reality. Nothing on wages and improving the lot the people that make this country tick and turn, just more wealth for the wealthy.
What about housing? Yeah nothing from Labour there either.
The fact all they could find was these two examples in the article is kind of the point, where it matters they aren’t really all that different and its playing around the edges like the central topics are all agreed upon. I am not for that at all and you do not have my vote tied up, I wont ever vote Tory but I can’t vote Labour as it stands.
Blue Tories or red Tories. Labour have already refused to rescind the protest restrictions and refused to give the NHS or anyone else a pay rise. Starmers words were “….won’t spend our way out of this crisis”
They’re not the same, certainly.
The issue is they’re both not great, so it’s ultimately the lesser of two evils. Either way you’re voting for a neoliberal party, so the chances of your material conditions improving much is pretty low either way.
I agree I think labour is better for the country, but don’t expect things to get much better during their term.
The strikes will continue, as while they may be willing to talk to the strikers, they won’t agree to their requests.
The drug policies won’t change.
The transphobic policies won’t change.
HS2 will still continue to be scaled back.
The train prices will keep going up with a worse service being offered.
Afaik the great British energy company idea is for an energy supplier only, so energy prices won’t change in any meaningful way.
This insidious meme, along with the discussion of government “maxing out the credit card” are two of the most poisonous narratives in British politics.
I would find this argument more engaging if it wasn’t so popular with people who got what they voted for at the last election. I will be interested to see what happens when pretending it’s 97 again doesn’t affect the direction of travel for our country. I mean aye, another Tory government would be worse, Labour will probably get in and that’s preferable. It’s better to have one bucket of shit rather than two. But until a large proportion of the population, our media and political class in particular, accept that much of their view of the world is just plain wrong, we are not facing a happy future. They might also bear in mind that having people go along with you because all the other possibilities have been destroyed is not the same as being wise or admirable.
They’re not the same, but I have faith in neither to do the right thing
We shall see, Labour is appealing to more people due to its lurch to the centre right. Something that traditional Labour left voters are baulking at.
The all the same crowd are just justifying their piss poor choices, like my Dad who voted Tory.
It’s the current go-to defence of people online who “knew what they were voting for” but still don’t have enough shame yet to just shut the hell up.
The gap is between the centre right politician and the only slightly more liberal centre right politician.
The UK will only become more Conservative as the atmosphere of politics is overwhelmingly Conservative, every majorly read newspaper is Conservative, Conservatives dominate the media, the government and the press is a revolving door and Labour attempt to win elections by becoming more Conservative.
There is no pushback, supposedly left wing politicians are only allowed to exist without having their character shot, stabbed and hung on the front pages of the Daily Mail if they pander to bigoted fools with dogwhistles and hateful rhetoric to be considered sufficiently electable.
The only politicians allowed to succeed in the UK are Conservative politicians.
The, “they’re all the same” attitude exists because of the increasing voter apathy and lazyiness which isn’t helped by social meida groups seemingly switching tracks, (amd indeed allegiences) without warning. Facebook is littered with anti Brexit/anti Tory groups which have seemingly dedicated themselves to scuppering Starmer’s chances soseemly no reason.
Do I thin this is a Tory ploy? No, the wider public, (and very much Labour’s support and voter base) does this to themselves with constant social media driven, “purity tests” and the villification/harrassment of those differing opinions regardless of extent or validity. Every move by the, “opponent” is framed as being: sexist/racist/authoritaritan so the deep meaningful policy dicussions and compromises required for progress are made impossible.
Basically, the .U.S. style of far left- far right polarisation of politics is embedding itself, (imported by both sides) and no one is making an effort to resist it. I blame both sides for falling into this trap. Sod both The Mail and the Guardian.
Theyre not the same, the tories will repeatedly make things worse, whereas labour simply wont do anything.
Like picking between two turds. Don’t spoil your ballets – vote an Independent.
“They are all the same” is a right-wing trope, and it is never true.
There may be similarities on some levels, but in terms of the main political conviction, they could not be more different.
Anyone who voted for the Conservatives in the next election should be culled.
This and voter apathy are some of the big causes of the past decade of political stupidity.
Yeah I need more from a party than ‘not tory’.
I won’t vote for neoliberalism anymore. I’ll vote green, so be it if it’s a wasted vote.
The “all the same” argument is just tory voters that absolutely dispise what their party did to them and the country but want to somehow justify why they keep voting tory. If the other options are just as bad then it doesn’t matter if they keep voting tory.
But… they’re not just as bad…
A tory leader crashed the economy, the penisons and sent mortageges skyrocketing in just 1 month of having power.
The tories are proven incompetent.
They’re the same in the way that impacts most, they’re both neoliberals.
That means the rich get richer, we get poorer, and they get their nice golden handshakes from the corpos at the end of it.
They are both the party of neoliberal capitalism though.
Will benefits get higher if Labour come in, will they scrap sanctions? Will they deal with refugees any better? Will they work to re-nationalise key industries? And so on and so forth. So there might be little differences here and there, one party might be more efficient in their management of capitalism, but that’s about it.
‘They’re all the same’ – the battle hymn of the shy Tory.
They both support brexit. They are the same for the one policy that counts. Give us a third choice.
Regardless of which Party I vote for the outcome will be the same for my life. So, while they are “not the same”, they very much are the same as far as my life is concerned. So any argument about them being “different” or that the “gap between” is a meaningless argument because it will make zero difference to my life.
All politicians need an eye kept on them, shifty bastards; but some girl’s mothers, are worse politicians than other girl’s mothers.
Out of both main parties, one specifically looks out for the interests of a much smaller demographic than it needs to get itself elected. Ergo most people’s interests are likely best served by the other – all things being equal & probably having to concede a few sacred cows; that’s your best bet
They may not be the same, the Tories are so bad now, I reckon skeletor would be leading in the polls, but they’re not so different either. Labour under Starmer are offering nothing. The top players in Labour are funded by corporate interests, such as BlackRock and American health insurance. Starmer is trying to get Murdoch’s approval not the workers . He is cut from the same cloth as the worst of the conservatives. The lesser evil is the only thing on offer, and as bad as the Tories are,voting in the self interest is all it will take to get them in again. If Murdoch doesn’t switch sides then Labour are unlikely to win as our democracy is dead. Lobbying and oligarchy have destroyed our vote. We need someone with a big idea,we need a real alternative.
Article is behind a paywall, just saying the last elected Labour pm was Tony Blair who took us into a pointless war, sold off water reservoirs deeming them unnecessary while we get annual hosepipe bans due to shortages, and is sitting on the board of the company that made a lot of money from buying and converting them into housing. Net worth of over 50mil.
So yeah both sides seem to fuck over the country for personal gain.
exaggerated blue neoliberal hell or less exagerrated red neoliberal hell.
no one is going to sort the housing crisis, invest in public transport infrastructure, invest in education, or invest in the health service.
who then do you vote for?
Alright then give Labour a crack and I will bet that are situation will be the same or worse.
They are different in ideology, I won’t vote Tory but Kier Starmer is using two words when one will do, he says we will have to be ‘financially responsible’ But that will just be the new ‘austerity’ IMHO. He won’t have the money to splash out and make things better because it’s all in Sunak’s mates pockets!
I think it’s more ment their policy and rhetoric are not that different from the Tories. Their entire appeal is “less evil than but still evil”.
They aren’t supporting workers striking. They support brexit, they pander to the right wing vote, they still support the house of lords, they still support FPTP.
I hear alot of “well they just need to get into power, then they can make a change”.
Then getting into power is an eventuality. You will be shocked to discover that they won’t function any differently.
Time will tell but I won’t accept seeing posts in 2 years time saying “starmers basically just a Tory I can’t believe I voted for him”. I’ll be here to tell you I told you so.
“They’re all the same” has always ever been the cry of right wingers and centrists and fence sitters to institute apathy.
We’ve somehow been deluded into believing New Labour under Blair were some kind of mega Tory corpo-wankers when just about every public service worked better in the early 2000s than they do now, the poor were treated better, rights for minorities and LGBTQ groups were expanded rather than attacked, and even the economy worked better.
A right leaning Labour leader did more good than every Tory since put together, and somehow it’s just been forgotten. As if figures on the far right which are actively thieving from us and denying us the basics of a functional government can be allowed to point at people which did better things than them in every single field and say “they’re the same as us!”
Voting for labour is like going back to your ex that made dinner but kicked your head in whenever his team lost.
“They’re all the same” was a narrative promoted by Tories in opposition.
The only way they could get back into power was to convince us that they were the same as Labour.
Think about that for a moment.